Feedback for March 2005

Our apologies, but you must have JavaScript enabled to view
author contact information.

Comment:

I'm not sure if
this is necessarily relevant to the Talk.Origins archive, but one
thing I've always found interesting is Christian versus Jewish
creationism. As you well know, most of the fundamentalists
Christians who find the Bible and science to disagree say, "Well,
the Bible is literal truth and therefore science must be wrong."
Most religous Jews I've heard of take the opinion, "Well, the
Bible is truth, but science is also pretty close to the truth. So
if we think the two disagree, we must be interpreting the Bible
incorrectly." They often follow this up by explaining that not
only does Genesis not disagree with modern cosmology, evolution,
etc., but rather that Genesis *predicts* modern cosmology,
evolution, etc., in ways that only God could have planned. I've
even seen claims that Talmudic scholars in the 13th century
derived the inflationary Big Bang theory from the Bible! Anyway,
since they don't claim that science is wrong, I guess there's no
need for a scientific rebuttal to their arguments, but do you
plan to ever host an article discussing their views?

(By the way, I'm aware that comparing "fundamentalist
Christians" and "religious Jews" is a bit unfair, as
fundamentalists should be expected to be crazier than mere
religoius folk regardless of religion. However, my point was that
even the most extreme religious Jews I've heard of still fit in
the the second category.)

Our apologies, but you must have JavaScript enabled to view
author contact information.

Comment:

I was recently
surprised to hear my brother-in-law, describing a book he had
been reading, begin repeating many of the standard creationist
arguments. I was able to counter most of what he had to say, I
think, and e-mailed him links to articles at talkorigins later.

While I wouldn't have been taken aback to hear him take the
Intelligent Design approach I was almost shocked to discover that
the book he had been finding so convincing was something called
"Darwin's
Demise" which, judging by the author's website, apparently
takes quite an extreme Young Earth creationist line,right down to
evolution's alleged responsibility for the moral decline of
America's youth and Nazi atrocities.

The links to articles on God and Evolution, 29 Evidences for
Macroevolution and Evolution and Chance were especially helpful,
as were the articles on whale evolution. (One of the questions
thrown at me was "where are the whales with legs?" I didn't know
of any offhand, and was actually surprised to find such an
extensive fossil record existed. I learn something new every time
I visit.)

So please add my voice to those thanking you all for
contributing to and maintaining these archives. They are an
invaluable resource.

Because I believe
in education, I volunteered at the public school library with a
librarian who buys bible mythology books and discards the
environmental and biology books. Of course I had to quit. Between
stupid "professionals" and right-wing homeschoolers, what chance
do these children have of contributing to the world? The two
theories of education are that it should create people who can
follow directions or people who can think. Soldiers or scientists
- what does the world need more of? If you can get them to
believe the flood, they will never question an order, no matter
how dumb. Anyway, I just want to thank you for your enormous
amount of work, though from the spelling and punctuation of many
of your gullible detractors, I can only guess they slept through
school or thinking was never taught to them.

Our apologies, but you must have JavaScript enabled to view
author contact information.

Comment:

I was sorry to
hear about the student that was having ID shoved down their
throat. I teach biology at a private High school in Guatemala and
therefore do not have to contend with ID being forced upon me or
my curriculum; however, I use ID, IC, and related ilk as a way of
teaching natural selection. If the instructor truely knows his
Darwin (and friends) and ID, it is a great way to contrast the
fact that one is truely science and the other merely "It's too
complex, God did it". There is ample material at Talk Origins to
assign for individual research and examples for lecture. I gave
an assigment where my students had to give rebuttals to the 5
common misconceptions using references outside the original
argument found on this site. I've had numerous parent conferences
over the assignment and the administration has been applying
pressure on me to "tone it down" (ie. don't teach science). never
fear, I'm going at it stronger than ever!

Our apologies, but you must have JavaScript enabled to view
author contact information.

Comment:

One thing that I
have noticed is that the teaching of evolution in public high
schools is at the point of unconstitutional. In fact it
technically has been as unconstitutional as the teaching of
creationism since 1961. I say this not because I hate evolution
but I support the constitution and the supreme court in which the
rulings of constitutionallity come from. The case that in essence
determines the constitutionallity is really two cases. The first
establishes the second. The first case is Torcaso v. Watkins.
This establishes that secular humanism (atheism) is a religion.
With this first ruling all religious views that stem from this
religion are considered religiously founded. Because this belief
does not accnowledge that there might/is a higher being which
would go against their beliefs. They are therefore required by
their own beliefs to belive in evolution. Just as Christians are
required by their belife to belive in creationism. The second
case is Edwards v. Aguillard. While the direct ruling has very
little to do with this little tirrade the affidavits have
everything to do with it. By summary of the affidavits there are
only two beliefs of our origin, creation or evolution. The
affidavits also imply that you can teach creationism without
premoting a religion. I find that this is true because seemingly
every religion apart from very few all seem to share the same
belief as to our origin. I am not a lawer so i cannot tell you if
legislation or court rulings have changed these views or not but
I can tell you that if the schools were to be impartial they
would have to reenact the Balanced treatment act.

The facts are that secular humanism was listed as a possible
non-theistic (no God or gods) religion in a orbiter
dictum (Latin for "something said in passing"), or footnote,
to the decision written by Justice Black, however being
only a dictum it held no legal weight (personal
disclaimer: I do not consider myself to be a "secular humanist"
so its standing as a religion, or not, is of no personal concern
to me).

As for acceptance of evolution equating to being a secular
humanist, the mere fact that humanists accept evolution does not
make evolution part of humanism any more than (most) Christians
accepting germ theory makes that a part of Christianity. Nor are
Christians "required" to believe in a literal reading of the book
of Genesis (i.e. young earth creationism, which was the subject
of Edwards v. Aguillard). This was noted by Justice Brennan who
stated in a
dictum to the majority opinion in Edwards v. Aguillard
that:

While the belief in the instantaneous creation of humankind by
a supernatural creator may require the rejection of every aspect
of the theory of evolution, an individual instead may choose to
accept some or all of this scientific theory as compatible with
his or her spiritual outlook. See Tr. of Oral Arg. 23-29.

And indeed many millions of Christians (and believers in other
theistic religions) in the U.S. and around the world do not find
any conflict between their faith and the findings of science.

Appellants contend that affidavits made by two scientists, two
theologians, and an education administrator raise a genuine issue
of material fact and that summary judgment was therefore barred.
The affidavits define creation science as "origin through abrupt
appearance in complex form" and allege that such a viewpoint
constitutes a true scientific theory. See App. to Brief for
Appellants A-7 to A-40. We agree with the lower courts that
these affidavits do not raise a genuine issue of material
fact. The existence of "uncontroverted affidavits" does not
bar summary judgment17. Moreover, the postenactment testimony of
outside experts is of little use in determining the Louisiana
Legislature's purpose in enacting this statute. The Louisiana
Legislature did hear and rely on scientific experts in passing
the bill18, but none of the persons making the affidavits
produced by the appellants participated in or contributed to the
enactment of the law or its implementation19. The District Court,
in its discretion, properly concluded that a Monday-morning
"battle of the experts" over possible technical meanings of terms
in the statute would not illuminate the contemporaneous purpose
of the Louisiana Legislature when it made the law20. We
therefore conclude that the District Court did not err in finding
that appellants failed to raise a genuine issue of material fact,
and in granting summary judgment21.

This case is crucial to the future of scientific education in
this nation. As researchers in many different branches of
advanced science, amici share a concern for the basic scientific
education of this nation's public-school students. Scientific
education should accurately portray the current state of
substantive scientific knowledge. Even more importantly,
scientific education should accurately portray the premises and
processes of science. Teaching religious ideas mislabeled as
science is detrimental to scientific education: It sets up a
false conflict between science and religion, misleads our
youth about the nature of scientific inquiry, and thereby
compromises our ability to respond to the problems of an
increasingly technological world. Our capacity to cope with
problems of food production, health care, and even national
defense will be jeopardized if we deliberately strip our citizens
of the power to distinguish between the phenomena of nature and
supernatural articles of faith. "Creation-science" simply has no
place in the public-school science classroom. Amici urge this
Court to affirm the Court of Appeals' judgment that the Louisiana
statute is unconstitutional.

That the authors of your affidavits are slightly outnumbered
(and "out ranked") doesn't make them wrong necessarily (science
isn't done by democratic vote), but it does put them in
perspective. If you want to argue that there exists an absolute
dichotomy between evolution and creationism, that "atheistic
evolution" and young earth creationism exhausts all conceivable
alternatives, or that evolution is somehow a religion you will
have to offer much more evidence than the opinions of five people
on the losing side of a court case.

Our apologies, but you must have JavaScript enabled to view
author contact information.

Response:

I was thinking
mainly of archaeology and forensics as sciences that routinely
discern design from non-design, but yes, SETI has detected
man-made space probes, too.

Fossils are recognizable as former life, so consideration of
them merely reduces to the question of whether life looks
designed. Regarding DNA, and life in general, some of the
evidence against them being designed are:

Life reproduces. Designed things, with rare exceptions, do
not.

The similarities and differences between DNA of different
species show a pattern consistent with common descent, not with
independent creation. We see the same pattern when comparing
other traits of species. If life were designed, we would expect
more reuse of parts independent of lineage.

Life is complex and jury-rigged. For example, one mouse gene
codes for a protein involved in its neurons. But that protein as
transcribed from the DNA has a wrong amino acid in it. Another
enzyme is necessary to replace that amino acid with the correct
one. Without this enzyme, the mouse dies. But if you change the
DNA to include the correct amino acid in the first place, the
enzyme is not necessary.

Designed things are almost always deterministic: Whenever you
pull a lever here, you expect that part there to move. Life has a
lot of randomness inherent in it. For example, when a chemical
trigger is presented to a bunch of cells, some respond and some
do not.

There are other differences, too, but those are a few of the main
ones.

Of course, all of this rests on the assumption (heretical in
ID circles) that design means something. If you agree with the ID
crowd that design is inscrutable, then nothing can be said about
it. Although you can be sure much will be.

Hey there. I just
wanted to thank you guys so much for this website. I have no idea
what compensation you get out of it. I have read so many articles
and am amazed at the amount of time it must have taken to compile
them all. Teaching others is a very noble cause. Keep up the good
work. And thanks again.

First, Thanks for
your hard work in maintaining this fantastic resource. I turn to
you often because as a teacher I find myself challanged by
creationists (including other teachers) frequently. there are so
many bogus arguments floating around out there that it is
virtually impossible to keep track of them all and/or to figure
out responses. It helps to have a site like this.

Second, I recently heard an interview on public radio with a
"lawyer representing the Intelligent Design movement" whose name
I forget. He brought up an example of an ID (or some other such
creationist) article published in a "peer reviewed journal" which
raised a storm of protest supposedly for merely publishing it,
not because of the quality of the work, etc. He gave no specifics
or citations but was trying to make the claim that ID arguments
are being suppressed due to bias. From all that I have read and
seen of these people I know to be extremely suspicious of any
claim they make "scientific" or otherwise, but I was wondering if
you have any notion of what article he might have been refering
to and what the real story is. Thanks.

Our apologies, but you must have JavaScript enabled to view
author contact information.

Response:

The article in
question is one by Stephen Meyer which appeared in the
Proceedings of the Biological Society of Washington last August.
The Discovery Institute spinmeisters would like people to believe
that this was a stunning work of scholarship which has not been
critiqued on its content, but merely as a reaction to its stance.
Which is, of course, hogwash.

With Alan Gishlick and Nick Matzke, I wrote a critique of the
content of Meyer's paper that is on the Panda's Thumb weblog as
Meyer's
Hopeless Monster. This was, in fact, the very first public
notice of Meyer's paper, and it concentrates upon the failings of
Meyer's work. It is a substantive critique to which the Discovery
Institute fellows have done a very
poor job of responding.

There's a post on Panda's Thumb that gives chronology
of events and links to background material concerning the
publication of the paper.

So when flacks go about accusing people of criticizing Meyer's
paper solely because of issues other than its "merits", point
them to the very first public notice of the paper and call them
on their bluff. They will have to fold.

Many of the
explanations on this web site are over simplified and don't seem
very well thought out to me. Especially your response to CF002
"complex organisms arise from simple seeds and embryos".. ha!
'simple seeds' and 'embryos' are more complex then anything you
could fully grasp if you studied it for your entire lifetime.

How do you explain all the information contained in these? And
the ability of each to decode the information? The more knowledge
you have, the better your understanding gets of HOW MUCH MORE
INFORMATION there is to learn. Your 'simple' examples are far
more complex then you could ever know. Trust me, I've been
through University and you could keep studying seeds and embryos
and still keep learning new information every day!

As I read through the answers I see a scrambling for answers
to legitimate questions and an attack on the character of
creationists instead of scientific answers. Empirical science is
what I stick to.. (which exists, by the way, largely due to
Bible-believing scientists, not biased evolutionists who look at
everything through their tinted million year goggles).

Our apologies, but you must have JavaScript enabled to view
author contact information.

Response:

You have missed
the point that, however complex the seeds and embryos are, the
organisms which grow from them are more complex still. How do
you explain all the information contained in a redwood
tree that was not present in the seed it grew from? That same
source of information can produce heritable and selectable
changes, i.e., evolution. Nature already shows us all the
mechanisms for evolution.

You are correct, however, that "simple" is a poor choice of
word in that context. I have replaced it with "simpler."

Incidentally, the Bible-believing scientists, with very rare
exceptions, are the scientists who accept million-year
time scales.

Our apologies, but you must have JavaScript enabled to view
author contact information.

Comment:

Nothing but a good
laugh from a cheesey site. Stop acting like a douchebag and have
a face to face debate with Hovind. Yes you're scarred because you
want to hide behind your computer like the rat you are. Hey It's
funny how you called the other person 10 when you act worse than
him. Makes mme question your intelligence, which is none. Proof
for evolution my ass. You need to re-take anatomy and learn
animal anatomy and then you might learn something. HAHA I
remember reading when National Geographic published a fake fossil
as evidence (haha makes me question what else is fake). cough::
piltdown man, Nebraska man:: cough or do you need man many more?
Learn science and stop acting like a bunch of ignoramus' and this
is possibly the stupidest site.

Our apologies, but you must have JavaScript enabled to view
author contact information.

Response:

There are plenty
of us who waiting to debate (in writing or face to face) Hovind
if he'd ever come to the surface long enough to answer his
critics. We are not scarred by Hovind and hardly scared of him.

Any one, and i do
mean anyone, who wants to debate this topic should contact me
right away. There is no way for you to win, the earth is not
flat, it is in fact a shpere. I ask anyone who disagrees to send
me a comment, i am perfectly willing to have a, informational
discussion about this.

First off, I love
the site, as it is an excellent resource for fending off silly
creationist blabberings. I don't think there is a more
comprehensive site of this kind out there (with an honorable
mention going to noanswersingenesis.com). Additionally, I was
browsing the "Creationst Claims" and I checked out the "Learning
Creationism Stimulates Mental Health and Happiness" argument and
I busted a gut when I read the second response..."2.Reading the
Talk.origins feedback gives the impression that learning
creationism stimulates anger and defensiveness." Thank you
webmasters for this excellent site; all of your hard work is not
in vain!

Our apologies, but you must have JavaScript enabled to view
author contact information.

Comment:

As a result of
interacting with creationists on my highschool's web site (not
actually supported by the high school) I have come to recognize
that one problem with the creationist background is that it
presuposes that since all is known for a given theological
system, all should be known in science. There shouldn't be any
new judgements or theories.

It is very difficult, in my experience, to convince them that
science is a continual learning process which necessarily creates
new ideas and theories.

Our apologies, but you must have JavaScript enabled to view
author contact information.

Response:

This is often
noted on the newsgroup. My personal opinion, worth what you pay
for it, is that creationists are postmodern in the way they
approach the world - a Text is prior to all experience, and
therefore no amount of experience is able to change their
beliefs. They therefore expect this will be true of anyone else's
views. If the Text they believe in is eternal, unchanging,
and a source of dogma, they expect that anything that contradicts
their Text will be equally claiming eternal truth.

Science, of course, is not the business of generating
doctrinal truths. It is the business of learning about the world,
and as we learn more, we must perforce change our views to match.
This, they do not get.

Our apologies, but you must have JavaScript enabled to view
author contact information.

Comment:

This was a really
helpful website! Due to not paying attention in class, I was
completely lost when an evolution project came up. But thanks to
the information on this website, I was able to get a decen tgrade
on the project! Keep up the good work!

Our apologies, but you must have JavaScript enabled to view
author contact information.

Comment:

Mr. Wilkins, I
came across your interesting webpage Macroevolution" and am curious
about several aspects of the following paragraph:

"Antievolutionists argue that there has been no proof of
macroevolutionary processes. However, synthesists claim that the
same processes that cause within-species changes of the
frequencies of alleles can be extrapolated to between species
changes, so this argument fails unless some mechanism for
preventing microevolution causing macroevolution is discovered.
Since every step of the process has been demonstrated in genetics
and the rest of biology, the argument against macroevolution
fails."

My questions: 1) I am familiar with this use of the term
"antievolutionist", but not"synthesist". Is this latter term your
coinage, or have I just missed it elsewhere? And would be willing
to elaborate a bit on what you mean by it?

2) The reasoning that because one can extrapolate b from a,
therefore arguments against the possibility of b fail, strikes me
as breathtakingly bold. Surely the usual standard required in
science is demonstration, not assertion? And adding the bit about
"unless some mechanism for preventing [a causing b] is
discovered" seems to simply beg the question. In fact shouldn't
the burden of proof fall on those making the original a,
therefore b assertion?

3) The final sentence apparently says that every step of
macroevolution has been demonstrated in genetics. But since
genetics is by definition solely microevolutionary, how can this
be? Anything scientifically demonstrated at the genetic level
remains valid as proof only at that level. I can see that it may
well serve as metaphor, hint, even implication of something at a
higher level. But surely not as proof?

I write you merely as an interested layman, and as such I
realize I have no claim on your time or attention beyond what you
may care to give. But I am surprised to find the counter-argument
you offer to critics of macroevolution so logically faulty and
overreaching of scientifically demonstrated fact. Unless there is
something here I failed to grasp? I hope that you might see fit
to clarify your thinking for me.

1. "Synthetist": I wanted a term that covered the views of the
Modern Synthesis of the period from 1940-1960 or so.
"Synthesists" sounded like industrial chemists. Hence the
term...

2. Of course we need to demonstrate that macroevolution
happens. This has been done, inferring in cases where the degree
of change would take, ex
hypothesi, too long to observe directly.

But the arguments against macroevolution are usually offered
along the lines that there are mechanisms that do prevent
it from occurring (at some level - choices range from the
impossibility of speciation through to the impossibility of very
large "kinds" evolving from each other, at the phylum level).

Everything we know about genetics, development, and so on
shows us that there are no barriers of the kinds claimed (and we
know a lot more now than when I wrote this). So my argument here
is that the burden of proof, or rather substantiation, has been
met and no plausible reason for thinking that macroevolution at
level N is impossible has been offered.

3. It is not the case that genetic processes are by definition
microevolutionary. This is often said, but never defended.
Genetic processes are implicated in speciation (whether by
isolation and subsequent independent evolution leading to
developmental incompatibility, or by "sudden speciation" in
hyrbidisation), and so any higher level of macroevolutionary
change must be, at the bare minimum, a series of genetic
evolutionary steps. This is at least additive (some say, and I am
inclined to agree, that macroevolution is more than
additive).

We have seen the sorts of morphological changes occur
that are held up as "impossible". Some have been sports, and some
are variable forms of a species that are greater than the
differences between other species. So I stand by my statement of
7 years ago.

Science is not about faith. It is about theoretical
explanations of the natural world. A theory that accounts for
observations, which offers predictions or expectations (for
example, if whales and hippos share traits no other groups do,
they will be derived from common ancestors, and this predicts all
kinds of shared traits with undiscovered fossils - this is an
actual case - google for "Whippo"), and which posits nothing in
direct contradiction with known science, among other things -
this is the best explanation in a science and it will be accepted
as correct, for the moment. This is true in any science, not just
the historical ones.

Macroevolution - by which I mean Darwin's idea of common
descent, also known today as phylogeny - is such a theory. It
therefore is the accepted theory because it explains so much.
Nothing else does. So the onus at the moment is on anyone who
wishes to reject it to show that it fails in some way. At the
time Darwin proposed it, and for a relatively short time after,
macroevolution needed to be shown to be the preferred theory
against the prior views of Owen, Oken and von Baer, which was
effectively a view of form causing organisms to be what they were
- an Aristotelian and Platonist view. Special creation was
employed scientifically only as an instance of this acocunt, by
Cuvier, 50 years before Darwin.

Science changes. What is accepted at one time needs to be
proven not to be the best knowledge bet, as it were. Once it has
been, it is no longer a viable hand in the card game that is
science (to stretch a metaphor). Creationism is not viable now,
because it explains and predicts nothing and is in contradiction
to the rest of known science. But to challenge existing theories
of macroevolution (although not the fact of macroevolution) you
have to show they fail to explain something, or that something
explains it better, or that it contradicts (perhaps newly-) known
science. Hence my argument in the FAQ.

Some ideas are just not open to demonstration in a way that
will satisfy the extreme skeptic (not just in science; a suitably
extreme skeptic could doubt I exist, for instance); but they can
be demonstrated to scientific satisfaction. Science is not, as I
said, about faith, but about knowing. We know macroevolution
occurs to a degree of certainty that will satisfy anyone but the
extreme skeptic. There is no arguing against that approach.
Nevertheless, as Galileo said in another context, still it (life)
moves.

Regarding Mark
Isaak's inclusion of rebuttals to 'Islamic Creationism': It
should be noted that none of the three rebuttals directly relate
to 'Islamic' (Harun Yahya) creationism. The Qur'an do not specify
the process of creation of organisms, nor does it imply separate
creation of kinds or the Biblical creation in six days. It should
be noted that Harun Yahya's opinion is just an interpretation of
some Qur'anic verses, sayings of the Messenger and teachings of
some scholars, but the Qur'an, the fundamental text of Islam,
interpreted literally do not unequivocally point to separate
creation.

Our apologies, but you must have JavaScript enabled to view
author contact information.

Comment:

CI001.1 on your
excellent website seems to argue that ID is exclusively
religious, and there can be little doubt that many of its
supporters are fundamentalist Christians. However, there are
atheists who would qualify as IDists, imprimis the Raelians:

Their IDer is not God, but space aliens, who 'created all life
on Earth using DNA' (sic). I think it may be worthwhile adding a
note to this effect; it may interest the fundamentalists to know
that their worldview is shared by atheistic advocates of free
love!

Our apologies, but you must have JavaScript enabled to view
author contact information.

Response:

What you say of
Raelianism is true, but Raelianism itself is, arguably, a
religion, and non-Christian design theorists have essentially
zero influence on the ID movement, so I don't think CI001.1 is
the best place to mention it. I will, however, amend CI410
(design requires a designer) to note Rael's idea of a
designer.

Our apologies, but you must have JavaScript enabled to view
author contact information.

Comment:

At the urging of
an acquaintance I recently read an anti-evolutionary opinion
piece (to call it anything else would be to stretch credulity to
the breaking point) by Fred Reed at: The Metaphysics of
Evolution As one would expect it is chock-full of scientific
errors and false premises. I found the most incredibly
transparent one to be the following on the ubiquitous cannard
about giraffe necks:

"Presumably modern giraffes have more vertebrae then did
proto-giraffes. (The alternative is the same number of vertebrae,
but longer ones. I have known giraffes. They were flexible rather
than hinged.) This, note, requires a structural change as
distinct from an increase in size."

Of course, one need not make any such presumption as the
relevant facts regarding giraffe anatomy are readily available to
even the layman who is inclined to spend 30 seconds performing a
Google search on the subject. Contrary to Mr. Reed's presumption,
giraffes have the same number of neck vertebrae (seven) as do
short-necked mammals, including humans. They are simply much
longer. Given the incredible ease with which the facts may be
found one is left to conclude one of two things about Mr. Reed's
presumption:

1) He is abjectly ignorant about the matter, and too lazy to
do even a simple Google search, or

2) He does know the facts, but chooses to lie about them.

I just found this to be a depressing example. Not because
someone would make such an easily debunked statement, but because
so many continue to be so easily duped by such silliness.

I want to know if
the "ID Theory" should, from a science Point of View, even be
considered a theory. I do not know of any predictions,
explainations or other aspects that make a theory a theory.

Couldn't the science community point out that the "ID Theory"
is nothing more than a postulate or at best a hypothesis? Perhaps
there wouldn't be an issue for Evolution vs ID if the science
community put the "burden of evidence for ID" where it
belongs.

ID proponents must show evidence on what is designed vs
ad-hoc. They must also show what "intelligent" vs
"un-intelligent" design. As far as I know not one of them has
shown a mechanism for any of their claims.

O most holy apostle, St. Jude, faithful servant and friend of
Jesus, the church honors and invokes you universally, as the
patron of hopeless cases, of things almost despaired of. Pray for
me, I am so helpless and alone.

Make use, I implore you, of that particular privilege given to
you, to bring visible and speedy help where help is almost
despaired of. Come to my assistance in this great need that I may
receive the consolation and help of heaven in all my necessities,
tribulations, and sufferings, particularly (state your request)
and that I may praise God with you and all the elect forever.

I promise, O blessed St. Jude, to be ever mindful of this
great favor, to always honor you as my special and powerful
patron, and to gratefully encourage devotion to you.

Amen

Say this prayer nine times a day for nine days. By the eighth
day your prayer will be answered. It has never been known to
fail

When prayer's are answered give thanks to St. Jude
publicly

I will have a section on my message board to publicly thanks
St. Jude for prayers answered.

Our apologies, but you must have JavaScript enabled to view
author contact information.

Response:

I am not sure why
this person posted this on an evolution site except that maybe to
encourage others to pray for our heathen souls, even though some
contributors on Talkorigins are religious people. Even more
strange, to me anyway, is it was posted anonymously.

It does remind me of what Ambrose Bierce once wrote: Pray, n.
To ask that the laws of the universe be annulled on behalf of a
single practitioner confessedly unworthy.

Our apologies, but you must have JavaScript enabled to view
author contact information.

Comment:

During a recent
trip to the Zoo, I was overcome by just how "human" a large male
chimp looked. I remember asking my wife if she thought that we
might actually share a common anscestor. At this point, the chimp
proceeded to reach down and scratch his groin area... to which my
wife replied, "Most definitely."

Our apologies, but you must have JavaScript enabled to view
author contact information.

Response:

You are relying
upon athiest naturalistic methodology and religious beliefs. In
order to make any HTML tools work, you have to sacrifice goats,
virgins or virgin data, to appease the computer gods in their
wrath.

Or enable popups windows for this site, as that is how the
HTML tools work...

From:

Michael Hopkins

Our apologies, but you must have JavaScript enabled to view
author contact information.

Response:

Actually John, the
tools don't work via popups so popup blockers should not have any
effect unless all of javascript is turned off.

The feedback writer was correct, the tools had ceased to be
functional in the submit feedback page. Why the tools had
previously worked on the page and still worked in the
password-protected answer feedback area drove me a little crazy
until I saw the problem. That problem is now corrected.

Do you believe
that the earth was created by a "big bang"? How can something be
created out of nothing? Even the smallest particles had to be
created by something, or the "big bang" could not have occured.
Please explain your view.

Our apologies, but you must have JavaScript enabled to view
author contact information.

Response:

No. That the
universe was created by a "Big Bang" is the most current theory
available that best explains the evidence we see. The earth was
formed by material and forces in the early years in the
development of our solar system.

Researchers can get energy from empty space, and empty space
isn't empty at all. Even a total vacuum is filled with a quantum
particles that pop in and out of existence.

It is interesting
how you state most creationism is "mostly folklore" when the
whole concept of molecules to man evolution is based on
materialistic religion, not science. You simply ignore evidence
that contradicts your religion such as an information code that
is so advanced that you cannot fully understand it but assert
that it appeared fully functional via chance processes. Please
from your vast scientific knowledge site an example of any code
that does not have a designer/sender please? If what you believe
is true why are you looking for SETI? The code we find may simply
be a series of chance circumstances. However, you know better
than this. You know what to look for in a code and you believe
there is intelligence behind it. So please, why do you view life
differently? Your great religious faith you have to believe that
the marvelous code of life was brought about by chance is much
more ridiculous than then "folklore" of creation that
acknowledges something we know for sure scientifically, there is
a sender/designer behind the code in life. Let's debate this one
subject in any university forum and let students decide which
idea is more ridiculous. Are you afraid?

Our apologies, but you must have JavaScript enabled to view
author contact information.

Response:

Thank you for such
a marvelous example of the folklore of creationism. You manage to
get three folkloric motifs ("molecules to man," appeal to
materialism, and evolution as religion) in the first sentence
alone. These are spread among creationists because they like the
sound of them, not because there is any merit to them.

Our apologies, but you must have JavaScript enabled to view
author contact information.

Comment:

Hillarious...I
recently remembered an episode of "Real People" (a variety show
of the late 70's) that had a segment on The Flat Earth
Society...or something like that. I just thought I'd do a
websearch on the subject and found you.

You rank among The Landover Baptist Church website as one of
the great parody sites!!!

Our apologies, but you must have JavaScript enabled to view
author contact information.

Response:

The reason that we
have the statement of the "Flat Earth Society" here is because
all of that was written in earnest. We're documenting that such
people really do exist. So don't get all complacent because you
think that anything silly must be a parody.

I have read William Dembski's lame response Biology
in the Subjunctive Mode, in which he uses ad hominem attacks,
lovely page count statistics and a standard of proof that
requires a time machine to meet. However, Dembski is not a
biologist and therefore is totally unqualified to make such a
critique (;-), so I was wondering if Behe or any ID-oriented
biologist had taken a crack at it.

Our apologies, but you must have JavaScript enabled to view
author contact information.

Comment:

Hey i do have
something to say. Prove me eveloution! There is no proof!!!!!!!!
I even bet those of you who wrote it dont even believe it!!!!!
You know there is something greater! There is His name is Jesus
Christ and he died for you and me!! I mean seriously! How could
the big bang really happen??? How could evreything just happen??
It cant! Eveloutionists say that there is no proof of the Bible!
Are you kidding me!!!!! There is a ton of proof!! Jesus loves all
of us i just hope you know that!! Have a great day and God
Bless!

With 100+ years as
a theory. when does evolution hit the ground and explain
anything. There must be intermediate species living today - any
hints as to who is on the way out, won't have to worry so much if
their days are numbered anyhow. If you can't pick out the current
intermediates, then can you show some fossils of some old ones.
All the archaeology I have heard of, not much at that, seems to
dig to a certain layer and then voila a whole different bunch of
fossils - I want to see the inbetweeners before I vote ( please
no cartoon picture type stuff ). A theory that remains a theory
forever - is that a theory or an ideology?

Our apologies, but you must have JavaScript enabled to view
author contact information.

Response:

In the nearly 150
years since The Origin of
Species was published evolution has long been able to
explain things. Indeed one would know that evolution could simply
explain a lot if one simply read Darwin's book. Or one
can read the files in this Archive to learn what evolution
explains and how evolutionary ideas are put to work:

If you don't think there are any "inbetweeners" here than
please tell us where the apes end and the humans begin and
justify your answer. If you need information on the specimens
please refer to 29+
Evidences: human-apes. Please note that creationists don't agree where to
draw the line between human and ape. For more information please see
this Archive's section on human
evolution. In particular you might want to consider the
Dmanisi fossils which bridge
the gap between Homo habilis and Homo ergaster.

You also are clearly unaware of how the word "theory" is used
in science. Please see: Evolution is a Fact and a Theory.
Atomic theory is still a theory even though atoms are a fact just
as evolution is a fact with evolutionary theory attempting to
explain that fact.